Search results

Ok. got it.

:?

No, I haven't. But I think that my mind is straight about this situation. Thanks anyway

Ok. thanks for clearing out point.

That's my point. Does anybody disagree with that?

Thanks for your reinforcement densetsu. I hope is now clear for all to know

The difference between MK-3 and assailant is the words "face up" and "active". It's clear to me that you are right about it, i'm just saying that some cards need to be reprinted.

Why not?. If relinquished can, why blowback do not?

So necrovalley is considered active even if negated by imperial order. Interesting, UDE needs to refresh some card texts, don't they?

I didn't think about that resolition thing. Thanks densetsu :-D

Correct me if ii am wrong, but the only requirement chain destruction need, is the summoning of the monster, not the monster remaining on the field after activatiion, like ring of destruction.

But the assailant xard text reads that if necrovalley is "active" on the field. Am I wrong???

Re: "Non-Spellcasting Area" I'm really looking forward to see a battle between a non spellcasting area deck vs. a skill drain deck. That would be fun

I think you misunderstood me. With zero as an option, the effect is considered optional, besides, the card text reads that you can destroy "up to" 2 spell or trap cards.

cool. Thanks to nova and densetsu. You both are an example that makes this forum worthy

I think so, yes, it would be negated.

Does necrovalley negates the effect of Pharaoh's treasure?

Indeed.

So, i get it now, but I still got a couple of doubts If player A is chain link one. Does he reveals the monster before player B effect activates?. And what happens if the chosen monster of player A get negated by player B jowgen?

Yep, that's correct. And remeber that mobius effect is optional :wink: